Language Access and Voting Rights: An Overview of Federal, State, and Local Policies

Nearly two and a half centuries after our experience of “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” we have learned a lot about what supports a healthy democracy. We know that expanding the ability to vote for all eligible citizens is the central pillar. This means ensuring that all eligible voters can vote, that all legitimate votes are counted, and that all voters have access to accurate information.

The right to vote has been called the “crown jewel” of American freedoms, the right from which all other rights ultimately flow. However, for American citizens who are not highly proficient in English, the right to vote can be elusive. Barriers to voting based on language skills, which have come in the form of literacy tests and English-only ballots, have a long history in the United States. Combined with persistent inequities in public education that have created obstacles to English language acquisition, more recent barriers imposed by states and localities have left many voters with inadequate access to voting—and even disenfranchisement.

Download the full language access report

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) and other federal laws designed to protect black voters from discrimination helped remove many of the obstacles faced by voters with limited English proficiency. Literacy tests were banned across the country. Discrimination against members of “linguistic minority groups” was explicitly prohibited by the 1975 amendments to the VRA. And federally mandated assistance—such as interpreter services and translation of ballots and election materials—in areas of the country with large linguistic minority populations has been a hallmark of the VRA for decades.

However, federal mandates under the VRA have resulted in only a patchwork of services across the country. Some language assistance is needed in many of the country’s largest states and cities, as well as in less populated areas that contain high percentages of immigrants from Asia or Latin America or significant populations of Native American voters. However, thousands of voters with limited English proficiency across the country have been left with little or no assistance, either because they do not meet the VRA’s definition of a “linguistic minority” or because their numbers, although large and growing, cannot satisfy the mathematical requirements of the VRA. formulas to trigger coverage.

These gaps in coverage have led several states and localities to strengthen and expand the language assistance required by the VRA in a variety of ways. Some jurisdictions have made election materials available outside of the official ballot, such as outreach literature, voter registration forms, and model ballots, more widely available to language groups not covered by federal requirements. Others have lowered thresholds for language assistance to numbers or percentages below federal triggers, thereby expanding the number of voters receiving assistance. And some jurisdictions have expanded the scope of local coverage to include language groups that do not fall within the formal definition of “linguistic minority” under the VRA. Depending on local demographics and advocacy, states and localities have voluntarily extended election assistance to speakers of languages ​​such as Arabic, Armenian, Farsi, French, Haitian Creole, Polish, Russian, Somali, and Ukrainian.

However, expanded access for voters with limited English proficiency has not been without problems or controversy. Underinvestment, even among supporting jurisdictions, is common: Deficiencies in implementation and compliance – including voting errors, translation errors and lack of interpreters – frequently arise, whether in VRA-required jurisdictions or in areas with expanded coverage. Backlash against providing bilingual or multilingual ballots is also not uncommon; criticism from many voters and public officials is often vocal and harsh, even openly nativist or racist. And opponents of any language assistance – whether federal, state or local – continue to argue that English is the dominant language in the United States and that providing aid in a language other than English causes disunity and creates disincentives for voters to become more proficient. in English. . This opposition is often reflected in public policies, including laws that make English the official language of government.

This report examines existing gaps in language access and solutions to expand access for voters with limited English proficiency, under the federal VRA and under state and local policies that build on federal coverage.

This report examines existing gaps in language access and solutions to expand access for voters with limited English proficiency, under the federal VRA and under state and local policies that build on federal coverage. First, the report examines language needs at the national level, presenting census data on language use, English proficiency, and political participation. Next, the report provides an overview of the federal VRA and its language assistance and enforcement provisions. These federal laws include Section 2, the general anti-discrimination provision of the VRA that protects linguistic minority groups from discrimination; Section 203, which creates a broad network of language assistance available in many parts of the country; and Section 208, the provision of the VRA that guarantees the right to personal and nongovernmental assistants for voters with disabilities and illiterates, including voters with limited English proficiency.

Next, the report discusses the major weaknesses of the federal VRA and analyzes how state and local policies have attempted to develop and expand federal coverage. State and local policies can be categorized in a number of ways – by form, scope of language coverage, types of assistance, level of government, and geography. The report does not attempt to provide a comprehensive analysis of all types of state and local language assistance; instead, it focuses on key examples and case studies that reflect broader trends that are occurring in many parts of the country. The report concludes by discussing best practices and providing recommendations for improving state and local coverage. Key recommendations include codifying formal language access policies, allocating sufficient resources and funding for language assistance, creating clear mechanisms for implementation and enforcement by government and private actors, and developing strong and transparent measures that facilitate community contribution and evaluation.

Download the full language access report